Exec Summary

Most jurisdictions share a common interest in pursuing the public policy objectives of safety, efficiency and meeting the needs of users for national payment clearing and settlement systems.

However, the weight each jurisdiction applies to each public policy objective may differ, according to the jurisdiction’s priorities or payment system agenda. In addition, every jurisdiction has its own legacy systems and processes, which may serve to either magnify or blunt the force of drivers of payment system change.

As a result, few jurisdictions have taken the exact same approach in renewing their core payment systems.

As Canada continues to engage in a dialogue to develop the approach to modernize its core payment systems, we set out to better understand the options and approaches taken in other jurisdictions. Our primary objective is to provide stakeholders, who are familiar with payment clearing and settlement processes, with a common understanding of key core payment system design considerations.

To that end, payment systems were analyzed in 27 jurisdictions, where we find the following:

• Most have added (or are in the process of adding) a new real-time retail system.
• All jurisdictions have a batch retail payment system, and most use centralized architecture. Automated clearing house (ACH) systems are the most common. Jurisdictions that maintain a batch retail payment system without centralized architecture have built additional core retail systems to provide for faster processing and enhanced functionality (e.g., real-time retail payment systems or separate systems for bill payments).
• The vast majority of jurisdictions have made major upgrades to their large-value payment systems (LVPS) in the past 10 years, keeping LVPS at the centre of core payment systems. Most LVPS have been redesigned to include liquidity-savings mechanisms (LSM), with technology to facilitate advanced liquidity management and faster retail payment system settlement.

Looking across the different payment system attributes of access, functionality, interoperability, timeliness of payments and risk management, the most prominent trends observed are the following:

1. Access: Jurisdictions are opening up their core payment systems to greater numbers of direct participants. The increasing numbers of direct participants have coincided with jurisdictions upgrading core payment system technology to enable risk-reduction processes and controls.
2. Functionality: Payment operators are leveraging centralized architecture to implement advanced system capabilities to provide monitoring and efficiency-boosting tools (e.g., liquidity management tools) for participants and value-added services for end-users.
3. Interoperability: Payment systems are expanding their degree of interoperability (automation), mostly between core infrastructure and other domestic payment systems and, in some cases, cross-border systems.
4. Timeliness: Most jurisdictions have introduced (or are developing) separate retail payment systems for direct credit transactions that provide funds access in real or near real time.4 Depending on the features of the batch retail system, real-time systems can gain wider usage by being designed to serve either business or consumer payments.
5. Risk management: Most jurisdictions are making payment system changes to reduce credit risk exposures, such as through more frequent retail payment system settlement and expanding LVPS processing capabilities.

The vast majority of jurisdictions have upgraded more than one core payment system. In the jurisdictions that have made technological advancements to more than one core payment system (e.g., a real-time system and batch retail system, or to a retail system and a wholesale system) the result has been highly interoperable, yet distinct, core systems that are complementary in meeting public policy objectives. Here we observe four distinct core payment system configurations emerging:

• Enhanced large-value payment systems (LVPS) that can process large volumes of retail payments. LVPS are operated alongside batch retail systems with centralized architecture (e.g., an ACH). In this configuration, the LVPS provides safety and speed, and the batch system provides enhanced functionality and services for end-users.
• ACH systems supplemented with new real-time (or near real-time) retail payment systems. The ACH provides liquidity cost efficiencies and offers rich services for participants and end-users, but with a delay in the availability of funds for payees. The real-time retail payment system provides end-users with an option for faster funds availability where needed.
• Settlement before exchange (SBE) batch retail systems supplemented by new real-time retail payment systems. The SBE systems use an integrated retail and settlement system process that minimizes credit risk, while offering the potential to also improve batch item timeliness and functionality. The real-time systems provide participants and end-users more timely payment options.
• Decentralized batch retail payment systems supplemented by additional core payment systems with centralized architecture to offer more feature-rich and timely payment options.

Conclusion

In sum, most jurisdictions surveyed have made changes to improve (or are in the process of improving) their core payments systems. As the trends provided above suggest, there are multiple approaches to consider in core payment system modernization.

As each jurisdiction considers their course, they need to determine their specific modernization objectives, based upon how they weigh their public policy objectives, their drivers and needs, and the gaps resulting from their legacy systems.

A solid understanding of the modernization objectives, articulated from a country’s unique set of circumstances can form the foundation for a holistic, multi-system plan to modernize core payment systems.

The post Clearing and settlement systems from around the world: A qualitative analysis appeared first on Accourt Payments Specialists.

The post IoT and the future of payments appeared first on Accourt Payments Specialists.

Expansion in the use of mobile payments over time has corresponded with an increase in smartphone ownership. In 2011, 44% of mobile phones were smartphones. By 2015, the share had increased to 76%.

This chartbook presents findings from a nationally representative telephone survey, undertaken by The Pew Charitable Trusts, that examined consumers’ opinions, experiences, and expectations of mobile payments. The survey followed focus groups that Pew previously convened as a first step in understanding consumers’ views on the potential benefits and risks of mobile payments. Specifically, this chartbook reports statistics on consumers’ awareness and perceptions of mobile payments technology, their usage and motives for use, and any barriers to usage. The key findings are:

• Mobile payments users – consumers who have made an online or POS purchase, paid a bill, or sent or received money using a Web browser, text message, or app on a smartphone – are more likely than nonusers to be millennials or Generation Xers, live in metropolitan areas, and have bank accounts and college or postgraduate degrees. Of these demographic categories, age is the most predictive of mobile payments use, particularly as it relates to smartphone ownership. (See the appendix for the demographics of mobile payments users and nonusers.)
• Making a purchase through a smartphone Web browser or downloaded app is the most common mobile payments activity.
• Consumers see a number of benefits to using mobile payments, particularly receiving alerts, electronic receipts, rewards, discounts, and help with budgeting.
• Consumers often don’t know how mobile payments compare with other payment methods in terms of convenience, cost, privacy, and security.
• Barriers to usage include concerns about the safety of mobile payments technology, which might result in identity theft or the loss of funds, and poor compatibility with cash-based transactions.
• Consumers want the data they generate by use of mobile payments to be secure and protected and access to it to be limited across entities, from phone carriers to app developers and advertisers.

The charts that follow delve into these findings and highlight the advantages that consumers associate with mobile payments usage and the barriers that may prevent people from adopting or safely using this technology.

Many consumers, including a large number who have never made a mobile payment, have heard of different mobile payment activities, such as using a smartphone to make online or point-of-sale purchases or pay bills.

Mobile payments users are consumers who have made an online or point-of-sale purchase, paid a bill, or sent or received money using a Web browser, text message, or app on a smartphone. Users are more likely than nonusers to be millennials or Generation Xers, live in metropolitan areas, and have bank accounts and college or postgraduate degrees. Of these demographic categories, age is the most predictive of mobile payments use, particularly as it relates to smartphone ownership.

Getting a smartphone is the most common catalyst cited for adoption of mobile payments technology, and millennials and Gen Xers are far more likely than those from older generations to own smartphones. The majority of basic phone owners (77%) say they are unlikely to buy a smartphone in the next year, meaning the age gap in smartphone ownership will probably persist. Smartphone ownership also varies dramatically by annual household income. Only 53% of consumers earning less than $25,000 annually own a smartphone compared with 81% of those earning $50,000 or more annually.

Mobile payments use varies by type of activity and with age, with more millennials having used their smartphones to make a purchase through a smartphone Web browser or downloaded app than to send or receive funds. Overall, few consumers make payments or donations by sending text messages. PayPal’s smartphone app is the most commonly used, ahead of Google Wallet, Apple Pay, and the Starbucks and Dunkin’ Donuts apps, and millennial and Gen X smartphone owners are more likely than those from the baby-boom or silent generations to have used these apps, except for Dunkin’ Donuts.

Millennials and Gen Xers in particular are motivated to use mobile payments in part because they like receiving rewards, discounts, alerts, and electronic receipts. Consumers are also interested in avoiding fees, such as overdraft or check cashing fees, and using their smartphones to help them budget. In fact, research shows that consumers are using smartphones to help with budgeting more than in previous years.

Consumers cite a variety of barriers to mobile payments use; the most common is concern about safety, specifically the risk of identity theft or loss of funds. Some obstacles vary by generation, with older consumers being less informed about the benefits of mobile payments and millennials being especially concerned about running out of data on their phone plans. The use of cash to make payments is cited across generations as a barrier, because cash cannot be easily loaded onto a smartphone. Cash is still a very common payment method, and consumers average about 8.5 retail cash purchases a month.

Nearly half of respondents say they don’t know whether mobile payments are faster, easier, or more private than other transaction types, and even more do not know if mobile payments are more common, cheaper, or safer. Reducing this uncertainty, especially about the safety of the technology, could increase use.

Mobile payments use is related to more favourable perceptions of the technology in terms of convenience, cost, privacy, and security. Users agree more often than nonusers that mobile payments are faster, easier, more common, cheaper, more private, and safer than other payment methods.

Consumers often assume that financial institutions, retailers, and others are collecting information about them, including tracking their locations when they execute financial transactions. In the focus groups, a number of consumers expressed moderate discomfort with the sharing of their personal information. About 8 in 10 survey respondents, with general consistency across political parties, say that steps should be taken to regulate how data are collected, stored, and used.

In focus groups, participants were generally unaware of which personal data are collected when they conduct mobile transactions or how those data are used. They also did not know whether or to what extent their privacy is compromised. When asked specifically who they think should have access to these data, only about half of respondents say that the payment sender should have access, and far fewer (5%) agree that advertisers should have access.

Conclusion

Age explains some but not all attitudes about mobile payments. About 90% of millennials and 83% of Gen Xers own smartphones, and individuals in these generations constitute the majority (72%) of mobile payments users. They are especially compelled by the option to receive rewards, discounts, alerts, electronic receipts, and help with budgeting and to avoid fees and are the most likely age groups to say mobile payments are faster and easier than other payment methods.

Across generations, concern about the safety of mobile payments technology is the biggest obstacle to use. Specifically, consumers are concerned about the potential for identity theft or loss of funds. Consumers of all ages cite the use of cash as a payment method as a barrier, because cash cannot be easily loaded onto a smartphone. And customers often don’t know how mobile payments compare with other payment methods in terms of convenience, cost, privacy, and security.

The growing mobile payments market has the potential to provide a convenient, affordable way for Americans to transact and manage their money. Yet concerns and uncertainty about the safety of mobile transactions and the lack of systems for depositing cash directly onto mobile websites and smartphone apps may be holding back this technology. Addressing these deficiencies could increase adoption, allowing consumers to take full advantage of the potential of mobile financial products to deliver safe and secure transactions.

The post Who uses mobile payments? appeared first on Accourt Payments Specialists.

Consumers can send and receive e-mail across the globe almost instantly. They can stream digital content live, or summon a cab or a meal within minutes. What are the implications of this need for speed for the payments industry? And to what extent are real-time payments the rails on which future innovation will run?

Life in the digital age is resetting our notions of speed and time. The average attention span in 2015 was 8.25 seconds, down from 12 seconds in 2000, according to Statistic Brain. This is now less than the nine-second attention span of a goldfish. In a world that seems to be on permanent fast-forward, waiting five-to-six days for a cheque to clear, or three days for a bank transfer to reach the beneficiary’s account, is like being stuck in reverse. It seems like banking from a bygone era.

The payments industry is at the confluence of many trends, some behavioural, some technological and others regulatory. Momentum behind real-time payments is building globally. We examine the drivers, the implications for end-users and those who serve them, and what the future may hold for payments in real-time.

The real deal 

Real-time payments systems are not new. The first domestic real-time payments system was launched in Japan in April 1973, and there are currently 18 real-time systems live worldwide. But what are real-time payments exactly?

Definitions vary and not all systems worldwide currently conform to the one that follows. Generally real-time payments are where funds transferred are available on the beneficiary’s account instantaneously, immediately or in real-time. A real-time payment system must be able to send and receive payments 24x7x365. Once they are processed, payments cannot be recalled. There is a finality to payment, but also a certainty as payments sent to a beneficiary’s account are either confirmedto both the payer and payee or rejected.

“In most countries, you tend to have a couple of payment systems: automated clearing house (ACH) and real-time gross settlement (RTGS),” explains Barry Kislingbury, director, solution consulting, immediate payments, ACI Worldwide.

“ACH tends to be for low-value, high-volume payments, such as paying the gas bill. It takes about three days to settle. With RTGS, the payment is settled on the same day. This system was intended for high-value, low-volume payments, such as buying a house or for corporate or interbank payments.”

“Real-time payments sit in the middle. They are an ACH-type payment over an RTGS-infrastructure, so they are performed in real-time but at the sort of price an ACH would charge for a payment — so much lower than RTGS.”

The drivers for real-time payments 

The speed, certainty, coverage and cost of real-time payments is driving increasing interest in the mechanism. Consumers do not necessarily understand bank back-office clearing and settlement processes, and nor should they. When they can browse, buy and download digital goods in real-time, any time of the day or night, they cannot understand why the digital movement of money is not instantaneous. They expect to be able to make and receive payments faster.

Advancements in technology are also making real-time payments possible. There were around 4.7 billion unique mobile subscribers worldwide in 2015 (a 63 percent penetration rate), according to the GSMA, a body that represents the interests of mobile operators worldwide. When the smartphone is the device of choice for accessing the internet — and is the only means a consumer has of getting online in some countries — this cannot but change the way consumers, businesses and governments interact and transact. Mobile phone ownership and access to high-speed broadband are also pre-requisites for mobile-initiated push and pull payments.

Enterprise technology has also advanced significantly since the first real-time payments systems were launched 40 years ago. “The banking community has ambitions to improve and modernise the payments infrastructure,” says George Evers, immediate payments services director, VocaLink. “This allows innovation and defends against FinTech activity that is starting to bite into every element of a bank’s product portfolio.” The infrastructure investments made now will power the products and services of the future.

A combination of factors is driving the change [towards real-time payments] and these differ from country to country. George Evers, immediate payments services director, VocaLink 

Policy makers and regulators are clearly interested in making payments more efficient, interoperable and cost-effective, with a view to driving economic growth, innovation and financial and social inclusion. The lower costs of real-time payments versus traditional card-based or RTGS payment is also an attractive feature for regulators, as well as other participants in the payments system.

This time the revolution is for real(-time) 

‘Revolutionary’ is a somewhat over-used and de-valued term in the age of PR and hype. However to what extent is the term justified in the context of real-time payments?

“Real-time payment is revolutionary because it’s game-changing,” says Kislingbury. “If you take any bank payment process, what would happen if that could be done in real time?”

Businesses and corporates have huge scope to use real-time payments to improve their cashflow, supply chain management, stock control and reconciliation. This could lead to productivity and efficiency gains but also to direct bottom-line benefits.

For example, a company with a global supply chain could offer to pay suppliers ten percent of the fee in real time when goods were loaded onto a ship. They would then pay the next ten percent when the ship arrived at its first port and so on until the ship arrived at the final destination whereupon the payer would settle the outstanding amount in full. In this way, real-time payments could enable businesses to offer improved invoicing terms to suppliers that could help increase working capital.

For retailers, real-time payments could enable just-in-time stock management with the associated operational and cost efficiencies. This obviates the need to carry an inventory, and could lead to fulfilment efficiencies. When a customer ordered an item, the retailer would in turn place an order with their supplier and pay in real time. The supplier would then dispatch the item either to the retailer or to the customer directly. The retailer would not have to pre-pay or store stock. They would also increase fulfilment options to the customer, and cut the costs of wastage due to unsold goods. Just-in-time stock management also has implications for the retail store of the future in terms of the purpose, design and number of stores.

For consumers, a number of possible propositions draw on the speed of real-time settlement. For example, emergency funding propositions where the transferred funds are available immediately to the beneficiary (e.g. social benefit claimant or child). With the rise of of part-time work, mini jobs and zero-hours contracts, employers could also pay workers quickly and easily via real-time payments. Gambling operators could accept wagers and pay winnings in real time, avoiding customer disgruntlement at the traditional two day wait for payment card credits to settle.

For banks, real-time payments will be no less significant. They will be the catalyst — and perhaps the imperative — for them to devise new business cases and revenue streams. “The banks actually have to change their business models. It’s no longer about making money from the payment. It’s about making the payment invisible and offering value-added services around it,” comments Kislingbury.

There is an obvious parallel with merchant acquiring, which is becoming an increasingly commoditised business at the transaction processing level. Acquirers are already revising their business models to secure their futures. They are exploring how they add more value to customers, and devising innovative, chargeable services for which merchants would be willing to pay. “It’s exactly the same argument across correspondent and retail banking. Moving money is what banks do, but there’s no real value in that these days because everyone can do it. It will be about what value you bring to your customer,” says Kislingbury.

The revised EU Directive on payment services (PSD2) is intensifying the pressure on European banks. Improving access to payment accounts and increasing transparency around payments and charges are two of the main themes running throughout the Directive. This is not a peculiarly European phenomenon. Banking executives worldwide are currently grappling with how they can create and maintain value. And how they can capitalise on the move to a more open banking environment.

Faster, richer data 

Value is increasingly bound up with data. Thanks to the ISO 20022 standard, real-time payments come with speed but also with richer data. Kislingbury explains the background and differences between ISO 8583 and ISO 20022.

“ISO 8583 is a small, lightweight message, designed to move the value of a payment quickly across systems built on the technology of 40 years ago. It’s quite a complicated, heavily modified standard because there is such a small amount of data. All the schemes use the standard differently to achieve what they need to. Although it’s a standard, it’s a type of non-standard as well.”

ISO 20022 is not actually a messaging standard. It is a standard to develop standards. Or a standard that helps define a business process. ISO 20022 comes with a large data dictionary, defining a wide range of business processes and the data required to support them. “It’s a much bigger message, but technology has moved on and can cope with that. You can describe the entire transaction: remittance information, purchase order numbers, invoice numbers. There’s a whole raft of things you can do, if you’ve got that data,” explains Kislingbury.

The banks actually have to change their business models. It’s no longer about making money from the payment. It’s about making the payment invisible and offering value-added services around it.

Barry Kislingbury, director, solution consulting, immediate payments, ACI Worldwide

There is huge potential for banks in terms of innovative, chargeable services they can overlay on a real-time payments infrastructure based on ISO 20022. Unsurprisingly, many countries with live real-time payments systems are actively looking to upgrade to ISO 20022. This includes China, South Africa and Switzerland. Meanwhile, countries such as Australia, the Eurozone countries and the US are building real-time payments systems on ISO 20022 from the outset.

However to enable cross-border payments regionally, if not globally, requires interoperability. This came a step closer in August 2015 with the publication of the first draft of ISO 20022 messages. The draft was the result of work by the ISO real-time payments group (RTPG), made up of over 50 international experts.

“There are a lot of countries designing and building real-time payments on ISO 20022. Historically those countries, which have already built systems on the standard have used it slightly differently. We wanted to put together a best practice guide to ensure interoperability,” explains Kislingbury, who participated in the ISO RTPG.

Keeping it real 

Besides interoperability to facilitate cross-border payments, what needs to be in place at a domestic level to implement a real-time payments system? According to George Evers at VocaLink, alignment across a broad community within the country is critical.

“Real-time payments delivers benefits to banks, consumers, government and businesses of all shapes and sizes,” he says. “To ensure ubiquitous adoption, it is best to engage widely to agree a common approach to solving problems and ensure the needs of these different communities are met through the solution.”

As with the implementation of many payment technologies — everything from EMV chip and PIN, to contactless, to mobile payments — critical mass on the consumer and merchant side together is key. Achieving this is partly a matter of ensuring that the system supports end-user requirements from a technical and operational point-of-view. However it is also a question of coverage (or reach) and access.

Faster Payments Scheme Limited (FPSL), the company behind various UK payments systems, is looking to open up the infrastructure to a broader base of banks and PSPs to provide easier and more cost-effective access. Consequently it is having to address challenges germane to real-time payment schemes generally, namely balancing access with security and the integrity of the system, particularly around 24×7 operation, payments delivered in seconds, high availability and certainty of funds.

FPSL is introducing aggregator models plus a new settlement model between participants to encourage direct access. “This creates a much easier environment for small banks, who are currently restricted to being secondary suppliers through a major bank, as they will have direct access,” explains Bob Mackman, director, Mackman Associates, a vendor participating in the Access to Payment Systems programme run by FPSL.

“At the moment, the smaller banks are dependent on the facilities of the major bank. This way, they’ll get much closer to 24×7 at a much more realistic price, so they’ll be able to offer these sorts of services,” says Mackman.

I believe that real-time payments will be the new normal for payment. And that real-time payment infrastructures will allow convergence of batch multi-day or same-day systems through to card clearing infrastructures. 

George Evers, immediate payments services director, VocaLink

Real-time payments is not the panacea to cure all payment ills. Real-time payments are fast, but how much speed does the end-user need, and when? Real-time payments based on ISO 20022 can pass richer data, but how much more data does the end-user need, and when?

The future is happening in real-time 

Unless there is a compelling reason to change, payers are not usually looking for a new way to pay. Thus, devising compelling use cases and propositions at the right price will be critical to the take-up of real-time payments. As will getting more participants to use the system, thereby generating more value for everyone who participates.

However, the momentum and excitement around real-time payment is justified. Real-time payment has the potential to be game-changing for all participants in the payments system. So far, the majority of real-time payments systems are based on push payments. But pull-based real-time payments in the retail and government sectors will have an even greater impact on incumbents’ business models and revenue streams. The risk of disintermediation, particularly for card schemes, of future innovation based on real-time rails is very real.

How long will it take for real-time payments to become a reality in more and more countries, and internationally? When will then be now? Soon. While there is no such thing as a simple payments system, the future is happening soon. However it may yet be happening sooner than soon. It may be happening in real-time.

The post Real-time payments: The need for speed appeared first on Accourt Payments Specialists.

The report Investments in Paytech analysed the investment lifecycles of 113 PayTech companies founded or operating in key western markets (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK and US) between 2010 and 2015. It found that UK and US companies dominate the market almost completely, with 90% of start-ups originating in these countries.

While the US has more PayTech companies overall, the UK punches well above its weight. In 2010, 13% of PayTech start-ups were based in the UK compared to 58% in the US. By 2015, the US had remained nearly static with 61% of start-ups based there, while the UK had more than doubled its share to 28%. Seed funding growth reinforces this view.

The average UK PayTech start-up received $1.8m in seed funding in 2015, more than double the $0.84m from five years ago, and is now nearly on a par with its US-based rivals ($1.8m).

The lifecycle of UK PayTechs is also impressive, with start-ups remaining independently active for longer than peers in other western markets including the US. After five years, 43% of US PayTechs had either failed or had been acquired, while all of the businesses in the UK remained active and independent. While this indicates that the UK is better at creating and fostering sustainable PayTech companies with long-term prospects, the lack of acquisitions suggests some caution about acquiring start-ups before they are fully scaled up.

Key findings

o    The US and UK dominate payments in western markets

• 90% of PayTech start-ups originate in the US or the UK

o    The UK is the second most attractive place to set up a payments business after the US

• In 2010, 58% of PayTech start-ups were in the US and 12.5% were in the UK
• In 2014, 61% of PayTech start-ups were in the US and 28% were in the UK

o    UK PayTech seed funding more than doubled between 2010 and 2014

• In 2010 UK seed funding averaged at $0.84m and grew to $1.8m in 2014

o    The UK is now on a par with the US when it comes to seed funding

• In 2014 US seed funding averaged $1.9m compared with $1.8m in the UK

o    UK PayTechs remain independently active for longer than US players

• 43% of the US PayTech companies which were established in 2010 have either closed or been acquired
• 100% of the UK PayTech companies included in this survey are still independently active

“It’s gratifying to see the UK PayTech sector punching well above its weight – not only creating new ideas that become new companies, but also creating businesses that thrive beyond the start-up phase to challenge the bigger players,” said Tony Craddock, Director General of the EPA. “While investors have recognised the potential in UK PayTech for some time now, it seems that prospective acquirers are less certain. PayTech companies and the broader payment industry needs to do a better job at showcasing the scale and scope of success in the UK.”

“One area the UK has led on is regulation and start-ups are clearly taking advantage of the unique conditions of the UK to create sustainable businesses. However, much more can be done. Regulators should take note of what’s possible even when some aspects of the system work against start-ups, such as the cost and complexity of accessing Faster Payments,” concluded Craddock.

“With the unprecedented speed of evolution in payments, it’s critical that we take a breath and evaluate whether as an industry we are doing enough today to support the payment businesses of tomorrow,” said Kriya Patel, European Managing Director, The Bancorp. “The report highlights the challenges and opportunities involved with funding, an analysis of the investment trends currently being witnessed, as well as an assessment of the business and investor lifecycles currently anticipated in this growing sector. From entrepreneurial start-ups to those on recognised global indices, it’s required reading.”

The post UK closing US lead on FinTech investment in PayTech appeared first on Accourt Payments Specialists.

Advancements in digital technology continued to shape the payments industry in 2015 as mobile,

 Digital Payments Report 2016

online and other digital forms of payments moved into the mainstream.

From mass transit to gas stations and supermarkets, businesses of all sizes, across all the regions surveyed, now accept various types of digital payment, making paying for goods and services quicker, but above all, easier for the consumer.

While this seems very encouraging, what does the landscape look like beyond 2016?

The Digital Payments Report set out to survey and evaluate all the Payment industry stakeholders from the three major payments markets in the world: Americas, Europe and Asia Pacific. The industry survey respondents were largely senior executives from Card Issuers and Acquirers, Retail Banks, Financial Institutions, Payment Networks, Mobile Network Providers and FinTech suppliers.

The responses across the regions offer a unique insight into how the Payments industry is evolving in 2016 and beyond.

Download the REPORT HERE

The post Digital Payments Report 2016 appeared first on Accourt Payments Specialists.

Thinking ahead from the past is always fraught with hazards. When it comes to the future of digital payments, it may be a case of same-same but different. Various technologies, propositions and use cases will continue to co-exist in the digital payments future.

“We believe the pace of change taking place in the payments industry is going to increase as digital technology continues to advance,” says E-bai Koo, senior vice president, global network business, American Express. “While the number of digital payment options is growing, we believe it is too early to determine whether any one platform or form factor will win out. Customers adopt new technologies when they meet their current needs better than how they are being met today.”

For John Berns, managing partner, Accourt, co-author of the Digital Payments Report 2016, various factors are coming together to drive the perfect storm for digital payments.

“Historically innovation has generally been hardware-driven so you have had to wait and catch the innovation wave. For example, no-one upgrades to the latest model of digital television immediately. Consumers only adopt new technology as and when their old device or technology reaches the end of its natural life or breaks down,” says Berns.

“The payments industry has invested heavily in EMV so I think that this will be the consumer interface for some while to come in the physical world — and the survey results particularly around contactless reaching critical mass bear this out. In the digital world, however, it’s a complete revolution.”

“Consumer adoption of new digital payment methods will be far more rapid as you’ve got the perfect storm as technology, regulation and social desire to operate via a single device are coming together.”

NFC contactless: the de facto standard

Contactless payments are growing strongly and NFC technology will be one of the drivers of digital payments at point of sale (POS). The Smart Payments Association reports that around 40 percent of chip cards shipped in 2014 included contactless functionality. Meanwhile on the acceptance side, 9.5 million NFC-capable terminals were shipped globally in 2014. This represented a 33 percent increase on 2013, bringing the worldwide installed base to 21.4 million units, according to Swedish research firm Berg Insight. 

Although consumers can already make higher value contactless payments, typically for payments more than €50, by authenticating themselves with their fingerprint or PIN on their mobile devices, this is currently only available at selected merchants. However, the acceptance infrastructure for mobile contactless is to be extended. By 2017, all contactless terminals already deployed across Europe will be upgraded to allow high-value contactless functionality. And by 2020, all European POS terminals will allow this.

Survey respondents were confident about contactless acceptance reaching critical mass. The majority of respondents believed that this would happen by 2018. 52 percent thought that North America would achieve critical mass by 2018, whereas for Asia and Europe the figures were higher at 59 percent and 75 percent respectively.

On the issuing side, 53 percent of survey respondents thought that critical mass would be achieved in North America by 2018. 62 percent thought that Asia would be ready, whereas 72 percent felt that Europe would be at this level by 2018.

Wearables and connected commerce 

Where are wearables? They are already here, for example American Express and fitness tracker Jawbone announced a partnership in April 2015. This marked the first time consumers could use a wearable fitness tracker with an embedded NFC chip for Amex payments.

As second- and third-generation devices are deployed, the market for wearables and connected commerce generally will continue to grow. According to the International Data Corporation Worldwide Quarterly Wearable Device Tracker, the wearable market worldwide will reach 111 million units in 2016, an increase of 44 percent on 2015 figures. By 2019, total shipments are forecast to reach 214 million units, a five-year compound annual growth rate of 28 percent.

The debate around when wearables will reach critical mass, how much they will displace cash and cannibalise existing card spend almost misses the point. Wearables are not for every consumer or every payment situation. However they broaden the scope of digital payments beyond the plastic card. They are also part of the greater trend of integrating and embedding payment into a broader experience — making them invisible — for greater speed, convenience and ease-of-use.

Digital wallets 
With Apple Pay and Samsung Pay live in many markets, digital wallets are firmly back on the payments agenda. That said, there have been various high-profile causalities in the wallet wars, with more expected. Google Wallet has seen poor take-up and numerous iterations since it was first launched in 2011. Visa Europe’s digital wallet V.me by Visa has been withdrawn two years after launch and the investment of around €300 million.

“There are a lot of digital wallets out there — some of the local schemes are looking at this — but we are starting to see some consolidation,” said Berns. “The revised EU Directive on payment services (PSD2) may well lower the entry barriers even further to new entrants in the space, which could interest the internet giants. After all, iTunes is a stored value mechanism, so it’ll be interesting to see how Apple, Google and Amazon compete in the wallet wars.” 

Handset manufacturers and alternative payment providers were judged the most likely innovators in the wallet space across all regions, according to the survey respondents. Mobile operators faired the worst. Yet when it came to trust, payment networks and banks were most trusted to deliver wallets, and merchants and mobile operators the least trusted across all regions.

Unsurprisingly, acceptance and convenience were the factors most likely to drive wallet usage, according to survey respondents. Ubiquitous coverage, or allowing the consumer to use the wallet wherever they want to use it at the very least, preferably via a simple, one-click checkout are the fundaments of a winning proposition.

Technology should be regarded as an enabler to the success of digital wallets, rather than the starting point for a solution. Due to the investment in EMV, the payments industry has favoured NFC for point-of-sale mobile payments, and has perhaps been somewhat standoffish about QR codes. Consumers, however, appreciate the speed and convenience of scanning such codes to make retail or bill payments in-store. Tencent’s WeChat wallet and Alibaba’s Alipay have capitalised on this insight in incorporating choice as well as speed and convenience into their propositions. Their respective wallets have been available to users in China for some time and both companies are looking to expand into other markets and regions.

There is no single use case or one-size-fits-all for digital wallets. As with so much in the payments industry, winning propositions must address both acceptance and usage in a compelling way. They build scale quickly by piggy-backing existing acceptance infrastructure, rather than trying to re-invent it. As few consumers go out of their way to pay in a different way, winning propositions offer incremental value to consumers in addressing an un-met or unacknowledged need or pain point compared with existing alternatives.

Security and trust

When it comes to security and trust in digital payment methods, the present is the baseline for the future. “Security is first and foremost for American Express. When we make new technology available to our customers, we do so in a way that provides the same level of security they are used to receiving from us when using traditional charge and credit cards,” says Koo. 

Opportunities and risks exist in the same future. They are inherent to one another. As Koo explains: “While advancements in online and mobile payment options have widened the scope of fraud, they have also created new opportunities to fight fraud.”

Koo cites the American Express Token Service launched in November 2014. With tokenisation, real card account numbers are replaced with tokens, eliminating the need for merchants to store account numbers in the clear, and limiting the potential damage if their systems are compromised. Tokenisation also enables issuers to deploy new digital payment services, such as Apple Pay and Android Pay, in more secure ways.

“Digital technology has also enabled American Express to communicate with and service our card members in more ways. They can sign up to receive alerts about suspicious activity on their accounts through e-mail, SMS and mobile app push notifications,” adds Koo.

The future of digital payments

What does the future of digital payments look like? The future will be more omni-channel, namely using all sales channels interchangeably to serve the customer. More ‘click-and-collect’ and ‘endless aisles’ propositions are expected as merchants consolidate their back-end systems. However, just as service will become more channel agnostic, it will also become more device agnostic as customers expect to transact from any device, any time, anywhere. The future is increasingly digital, which means a greater take-up of digital payment methods.

These methods include automated clearing house (ACH) payments, which are expected to rise in prominence, particularly with the global movement towards immediate or real-time payments. Real-time settlement on the back-end is key to this because it minimises risk for everyone. The merchant receives faster settlement. The consumer sees the transaction immediately and is able to support, approve and challenge it as appropriate.

“Immediate payments is great fit with what is happening in the digital space and the perfect storm I mentioned earlier. So the short answer about the future of digital payments is: there is going to be more of it,” according to Berns.

Succeeding in the digital future

The digital future is about scale, partnerships and speed-to-market. According to Koo at American Express, advancements in digital technology have opened up opportunities for companies of all sizes to get into the payment business, and to grow scale almost overnight.

“We believe that scale wins and partnership is key to achieving success. Given the complexities of the payments industry, companies that can find ways to partner and break into the ecosystem have a much better chance of succeeding.”

“If you look at the amount of funding going into FinTech at the moment and the rate at which technology and innovation are moving, I think that the salvation of traditional players is partnerships and abandoning the build-it-yourself mentality,” says Berns.

“Payment industry incumbents and traditional players definitely have a role to play in making good lending decisions and managing deposits. Beyond these core functions, the technology innovators also have a role to play. Fortunately the industry is big enough for everyone to have a role.”

The Digital Payments Report 2016 provides views and projections on the state of payments based on research and a survey of industry executives, observers and analysts.

The post The future of digital payments appeared first on Accourt Payments Specialists.

Life in the digital age is resetting our notions of speed and time. The average attention span in 2015 was 8.25 seconds, down from 12 seconds in 2000, according to Statistic Brain. This is now less than the nine-second attention span of a goldfish. In a world that seems to be on permanent fast-forward, waiting five-to-six days for a cheque to clear, or three days for a bank transfer to reach the beneficiary’s account, is like being stuck in reverse. It seems like banking from a bygone era.

The payments industry is at the confluence of many trends, some behavioural, some technological and others regulatory. Momentum behind real-time payments is building globally. We examine the drivers, the implications for end-users and those who serve them, and what the future may hold for payments in real-time.

The real deal 

Real-time payments systems are not new. The first domestic real-time payments system was launched in Japan in April 1973, and there are currently 18 real-time systems live worldwide. But what are real-time payments exactly?

Definitions vary and not all systems worldwide currently conform to the one that follows. Generally real-time payments are where funds transferred are available on the beneficiary’s account instantaneously, immediately or in real-time. A real-time payment system must be able to send and receive payments 24x7x365. Once they are processed, payments cannot be recalled. There is a finality to payment, but also a certainty as payments sent to a beneficiary’s account are either confirmedto both the payer and payee or rejected.

“In most countries, you tend to have a couple of payment systems: automated clearing house (ACH) and real-time gross settlement (RTGS),” explains Barry Kislingbury, director, solution consulting, immediate payments, ACI Worldwide.

“ACH tends to be for low-value, high-volume payments, such as paying the gas bill. It takes about three days to settle. With RTGS, the payment is settled on the same day. This system was intended for high-value, low-volume payments, such as buying a house or for corporate or interbank payments.”

“Real-time payments sit in the middle. They are an ACH-type payment over an RTGS-infrastructure, so they are performed in real-time but at the sort of price an ACH would charge for a payment — so much lower than RTGS.”

The drivers for real-time payments 

The speed, certainty, coverage and cost of real-time payments is driving increasing interest in the mechanism. Consumers do not necessarily understand bank back-office clearing and settlement processes, and nor should they. When they can browse, buy and download digital goods in real-time, any time of the day or night, they cannot understand why the digital movement of money is not instantaneous. They expect to be able to make and receive payments faster.

Advancements in technology are also making real-time payments possible. There were around 4.7 billion unique mobile subscribers worldwide in 2015 (a 63 percent penetration rate), according to the GSMA, a body that represents the interests of mobile operators worldwide. When the smartphone is the device of choice for accessing the internet — and is the only means a consumer has of getting online in some countries — this cannot but change the way consumers, businesses and governments interact and transact. Mobile phone ownership and access to high-speed broadband are also pre-requisites for mobile-initiated push and pull payments.

Enterprise technology has also advanced significantly since the first real-time payments systems were launched 40 years ago. “The banking community has ambitions to improve and modernise the payments infrastructure,” says George Evers, immediate payments services director, VocaLink. “This allows innovation and defends against FinTech activity that is starting to bite into every element of a bank’s product portfolio.” The infrastructure investments made now will power the products and services of the future.

A combination of factors is driving the change [towards real-time payments] and these differ from country to country. George Evers, immediate payments services director, VocaLink 

Policy makers and regulators are clearly interested in making payments more efficient, interoperable and cost-effective, with a view to driving economic growth, innovation and financial and social inclusion. The lower costs of real-time payments versus traditional card-based or RTGS payment is also an attractive feature for regulators, as well as other participants in the payments system.

This time the revolution is for real(-time) 

‘Revolutionary’ is a somewhat over-used and de-valued term in the age of PR and hype. However to what extent is the term justified in the context of real-time payments?

“Real-time payment is revolutionary because it’s game-changing,” says Kislingbury. “If you take any bank payment process, what would happen if that could be done in real time?”

Businesses and corporates have huge scope to use real-time payments to improve their cashflow, supply chain management, stock control and reconciliation. This could lead to productivity and efficiency gains but also to direct bottom-line benefits.

For example, a company with a global supply chain could offer to pay suppliers ten percent of the fee in real time when goods were loaded onto a ship. They would then pay the next ten percent when the ship arrived at its first port and so on until the ship arrived at the final destination whereupon the payer would settle the outstanding amount in full. In this way, real-time payments could enable businesses to offer improved invoicing terms to suppliers that could help increase working capital.

For retailers, real-time payments could enable just-in-time stock management with the associated operational and cost efficiencies. This obviates the need to carry an inventory, and could lead to fulfilment efficiencies. When a customer ordered an item, the retailer would in turn place an order with their supplier and pay in real time. The supplier would then dispatch the item either to the retailer or to the customer directly. The retailer would not have to pre-pay or store stock. They would also increase fulfilment options to the customer, and cut the costs of wastage due to unsold goods. Just-in-time stock management also has implications for the retail store of the future in terms of the purpose, design and number of stores.

For consumers, a number of possible propositions draw on the speed of real-time settlement. For example, emergency funding propositions where the transferred funds are available immediately to the beneficiary (e.g. social benefit claimant or child). With the rise of of part-time work, mini jobs and zero-hours contracts, employers could also pay workers quickly and easily via real-time payments. Gambling operators could accept wagers and pay winnings in real time, avoiding customer disgruntlement at the traditional two day wait for payment card credits to settle.

For banks, real-time payments will be no less significant. They will be the catalyst — and perhaps the imperative — for them to devise new business cases and revenue streams. “The banks actually have to change their business models. It’s no longer about making money from the payment. It’s about making the payment invisible and offering value-added services around it,” comments Kislingbury.

There is an obvious parallel with merchant acquiring, which is becoming an increasingly commoditised business at the transaction processing level. Acquirers are already revising their business models to secure their futures. They are exploring how they add more value to customers, and devising innovative, chargeable services for which merchants would be willing to pay. “It’s exactly the same argument across correspondent and retail banking. Moving money is what banks do, but there’s no real value in that these days because everyone can do it. It will be about what value you bring to your customer,” says Kislingbury.

The revised EU Directive on payment services (PSD2) is intensifying the pressure on European banks. Improving access to payment accounts and increasing transparency around payments and charges are two of the main themes running throughout the Directive. This is not a peculiarly European phenomenon. Banking executives worldwide are currently grappling with how they can create and maintain value. And how they can capitalise on the move to a more open banking environment.

Faster, richer data 

Value is increasingly bound up with data. Thanks to the ISO 20022 standard, real-time payments come with speed but also with richer data. Kislingbury explains the background and differences between ISO 8583 and ISO 20022.

“ISO 8583 is a small, lightweight message, designed to move the value of a payment quickly across systems built on the technology of 40 years ago. It’s quite a complicated, heavily modified standard because there is such a small amount of data. All the schemes use the standard differently to achieve what they need to. Although it’s a standard, it’s a type of non-standard as well.”

ISO 20022 is not actually a messaging standard. It is a standard to develop standards. Or a standard that helps define a business process. ISO 20022 comes with a large data dictionary, defining a wide range of business processes and the data required to support them. “It’s a much bigger message, but technology has moved on and can cope with that. You can describe the entire transaction: remittance information, purchase order numbers, invoice numbers. There’s a whole raft of things you can do, if you’ve got that data,” explains Kislingbury.

The banks actually have to change their business models. It’s no longer about making money from the payment. It’s about making the payment invisible and offering value-added services around it.

Barry Kislingbury, director, solution consulting, immediate payments, ACI Worldwide

There is huge potential for banks in terms of innovative, chargeable services they can overlay on a real-time payments infrastructure based on ISO 20022. Unsurprisingly, many countries with live real-time payments systems are actively looking to upgrade to ISO 20022. This includes China, South Africa and Switzerland. Meanwhile, countries such as Australia, the Eurozone countries and the US are building real-time payments systems on ISO 20022 from the outset.

However to enable cross-border payments regionally, if not globally, requires interoperability. This came a step closer in August 2015 with the publication of the first draft of ISO 20022 messages. The draft was the result of work by the ISO real-time payments group (RTPG), made up of over 50 international experts.

“There are a lot of countries designing and building real-time payments on ISO 20022. Historically those countries, which have already built systems on the standard have used it slightly differently. We wanted to put together a best practice guide to ensure interoperability,” explains Kislingbury, who participated in the ISO RTPG.

Keeping it real 

Besides interoperability to facilitate cross-border payments, what needs to be in place at a domestic level to implement a real-time payments system? According to George Evers at VocaLink, alignment across a broad community within the country is critical.

“Real-time payments delivers benefits to banks, consumers, government and businesses of all shapes and sizes,” he says. “To ensure ubiquitous adoption, it is best to engage widely to agree a common approach to solving problems and ensure the needs of these different communities are met through the solution.”

As with the implementation of many payment technologies — everything from EMV chip and PIN, to contactless, to mobile payments — critical mass on the consumer and merchant side together is key. Achieving this is partly a matter of ensuring that the system supports end-user requirements from a technical and operational point-of-view. However it is also a question of coverage (or reach) and access.

Faster Payments Scheme Limited (FPSL), the company behind various UK payments systems, is looking to open up the infrastructure to a broader base of banks and PSPs to provide easier and more cost-effective access. Consequently it is having to address challenges germane to real-time payment schemes generally, namely balancing access with security and the integrity of the system, particularly around 24×7 operation, payments delivered in seconds, high availability and certainty of funds.

FPSL is introducing aggregator models plus a new settlement model between participants to encourage direct access. “This creates a much easier environment for small banks, who are currently restricted to being secondary suppliers through a major bank, as they will have direct access,” explains Bob Mackman, director, Mackman Associates, a vendor participating in the Access to Payment Systems programme run by FPSL.

“At the moment, the smaller banks are dependent on the facilities of the major bank. This way, they’ll get much closer to 24×7 at a much more realistic price, so they’ll be able to offer these sorts of services,” says Mackman.

I believe that real-time payments will be the new normal for payment. And that real-time payment infrastructures will allow convergence of batch multi-day or same-day systems through to card clearing infrastructures. 

George Evers, immediate payments services director, VocaLink

Real-time payments is not the panacea to cure all payment ills. Real-time payments are fast, but how much speed does the end-user need, and when? Real-time payments based on ISO 20022 can pass richer data, but how much more data does the end-user need, and when?

The future is happening in real-time 

Unless there is a compelling reason to change, payers are not usually looking for a new way to pay. Thus, devising compelling use cases and propositions at the right price will be critical to the take-up of real-time payments. As will getting more participants to use the system, thereby generating more value for everyone who participates.

However, the momentum and excitement around real-time payment is justified. Real-time payment has the potential to be game-changing for all participants in the payments system. So far, the majority of real-time payments systems are based on push payments. But pull-based real-time payments in the retail and government sectors will have an even greater impact on incumbents’ business models and revenue streams. The risk of disintermediation, particularly for card schemes, of future innovation based on real-time rails is very real.

How long will it take for real-time payments to become a reality in more and more countries, and internationally? When will then be now? Soon. While there is no such thing as a simple payments system, the future is happening soon. However it may yet be happening sooner than soon. It may be happening in real-time.

The post Real-time payments: The need for speed appeared first on Accourt Payments Specialists.

In an interview with RTL Nieuws broadcast on Monday, ECB executive board member Yves Mersch said the

ECB plans new system for bank transfers

system would let a consumer link, for instance, her telephone number to her International Bank Account Number, or IBAN.

Under the system, “to send payment over your telephone from one country to another, you go onto your contact list, you take the name of a person, and you would immediately also get his IBAN”, Mersch said.

The chief obstacles to the idea are legal, not technical, he added.

The post ECB plans new system for bank transfers appeared first on Accourt Payments Specialists.

Emerging Asian countries are driving the growth in non-cash, particularly China which is expected to move into fourth place behind the US, Europe and Brazil in terms of non-cash payments. The rising penetration of mobile phones in smaller Chinese towns and cities is resulting in increased mobile payments — 4.5 billion in 2014, up 170%. Steps taken by the Chinese regulatory authorities to accelerate the deployment of point-of-sale equipment to merchants and to open the domestic card payments to competition have also increased non-cash payments.

Number of non-cash transactions (billion) by region, 2009-2013 Sources: World Payments Report 2015, Capgemini/Royal Bank of Scotland. Accenture.

Growth occurred in all non-cash payment methods globally, except cheques which declined 10.9 percent. The share of non-cash transactions made via cards grew to 62.8% in 2013, up from 60.9% in 2012. Although growth in debit card payments globally slowed in 2013, this payment method still remains the most used of all non-cash methods. Debit card usage in the US bucked the trend by increasing by 8.3% in 2013. A total of 61 billion debit card transactions were made in the US, dwarfing Europe, the second largest market, with 34 billion payments.

The growth rate of credit cards remained steady at 9.6%, despite a decline in growth in Latin America from 18.2% in 2012 to 10% in 2013. There were 69 billion credit card payments in 2013, and these are expected to grow in the US and Europe as their respective economies recover.

On an individual consumer basis, Finland again led the way in terms of the number of non-cash transactions per inhabitant. Each Finn made an average of 451 transactions in 2013. Following Finland was the US, where inhabitants made an average of 390 non-cash transactions.

Payments processed through non-bank systems, which the report refers to as ‘hidden payments’, were estimated to have reached 24-40 billion in 2014. This would make them around 10% of non-cash payments, at the upper end of this range. ‘Hidden payments’ include those made through closed loop cards, mobile apps, digital wallets, mobile money and virtual currencies. The growing level of ‘hidden payments’ is a disintermediation threat for banks and those within the financial services industry. There are also wider implications for regulators and consumers around some elements of these payment methods. This includes dispute resolution, consumer protection, information security, privacy, fraud and anti-money laundering provisions.

Despite the rise of challengers and new market entrants, the report feels that banks are perhaps better positioned than their rivals to offer holistic solutions. Banks are able to operate across various payment methods and channels to offer customer-centric innovations. This makes them a consolidated provider for consumers and businesses, as opposed to customers having separate relationships with multiple parties depending on the payment scenario. Banks are also strongly placed to develop innovative offerings based on existing infrastructure, such as immediate payments, to differentiate themselves from other PSPs.

The post Electronic payments grow faster than GDP across all regions appeared first on Accourt Payments Specialists.